Theoretical Background

  • Michael BarrieEmail author
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 84)


This chapter establishes the theoretical background in which the forthcoming analysis is couched. In particular, it adopt the tenets of Bare Phrase Structure, Antisymmetry and Dynamic Antisymmetry. Each of these proposals is spelled out in detail in this chapter. Also included is a discussion on the elimination of head movement from UG and a brief mention of alternative theories of linearization.


Linearization LCA Dynamic antisymmetry BPS Head movement 


  1. Aboh, Enoch. 2004. “Snowballing Movement and Generalized Pied-Piping.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk Van Riemsdijk, 15–48. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, Edith. 2003. “Remnant Movement in Tagalog Relative Clause Formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):631–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambar, Manuela, and Jean-Yves Pollock. 2002. “Topic vs. Comment in Some Subject Inversion Sentences in French and Portuguese.” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1 (1):119–38.Google Scholar
  4. Aoun, Joseph, and Dominique Sportiche. 1983. “On the Formal Theory of Government.” The Linguistic Review 2:211–36.Google Scholar
  5. Baauw, Sergio. 1998. “Subject-Verb Inversion in Spanish: Movement as Symmetry Breaker.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 15:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach, Emmon. 1968. “Nouns and Noun Phrases.” In Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by Robert T. Harms Emmon Bach, 91–124. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark C. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16 (3):373–416.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Baltin, Mark. 2001. “Movement to the Higher V is Remnant Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (4):653–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Jason Brown. 1997. “Interarborial Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2):345–56.Google Scholar
  11. Boeckx, Cedric, and Sandra Stjepanović. 2001. “Head-ing Toward PF.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2):345–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bošković, Željko. 2002. “Clitics as Nonbranching Elements and the Linear Correspondence Axiom.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2):329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broekhuis, Hans. 2006. “The Universal Base Hypothesis: VO or OV?” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006, edited by Jeroen van de Weijer, and Battelou Los, 28–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carstens, Vicki. 2002. “Antisymmetry and Word Order in Serial Constructions.” Language 78 (1):3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Janua Linguarum. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, edited by Roderick Jacobs, and Peter Rosenbaum, 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown UP.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Ken Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
  23. Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, edited by Gert Webelhuth, 383–439. Generative Syntax. Oxford; 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, D. Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, edited by Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, edited by P. Oltero, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “The ‘Antisymmetric’ Programme: Theoretical and Typological Implications.” Journal of Linguistics 32 (2):447–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Citko, Barbara. 2005. “On the Nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (4):475–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cummings, Constance. 2002. “XP (Remnant) Movement and Verb Serialization in Yoruba.” PhD diss., New York University.Google Scholar
  33. Déchaine, Rose Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3):409–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Ruriko Kawashima, and Hisatsugo Kitahara. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ernst, Thomas. 2003. “Adjuncts and Word Order Asymmetries.” In Asymmetry in Grammar: Volume I: Syntax and Semantics, edited by Anna Maria di Sciullo, 187–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. “Münchhausen-Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second.” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 13:40–76.Google Scholar
  38. Frank, Robert, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2001. “Primitive C-Command.” Syntax 4 (3):164–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fukui, Naoki, and Yuji Takano. 1998. “Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Guasti, Maria-Teresa, and Andrea Moro. 2001. “Romance Causatives and Dynamic Antisymmetry: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi.” In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, edited by Guglielmo Cinque, and Giampaolo Salvi, 173–88. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  42. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2008. “A Note on the Strong Generative Capacity of Standard Antisymmetry Theory.” Snippets 18:5–7.Google Scholar
  43. Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. “Remnant Movement and OV Order.” In The Derivation of VO and OV, edited by Peter Svenonius, 69–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Haegeman, Liliane. 2001. Antisymmetry and Verb-Final Order in West Flemish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3 (3):207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harley, Heidi. 2004. “Merge, Conflation and Head Movement: The First Sister Principle Revisited” In NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 239–54. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  46. Hornstein, Norbert, and Jairo Nunes. 2008. “Adjunction, Labelling, and Bare Phrase Structure.” Biolinguistics 2 (1):57–86.Google Scholar
  47. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kandybowicz, Jason, and Mark C. Baker. 2003. “On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe.” Syntax 6 (2):115–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kayne, Richard. 2003a. “Antisymmetry and Japanese.” English Linguistics 20:1–40.Google Scholar
  52. Kayne, Richard. 2003b. “Antisymmetry, Adpositions and Remnant Movement.” Paper presented at the workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, October 31 – November 1, 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Kayne, Richard. 2009. “Why is Syntax Antisymmetric.” Paper presented at the Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, New Castle, DE.Google Scholar
  54. Kayne, Richard. 2010. “Why Are There No Directionality Parameters?” Paper presented at the WCCFL 28, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Koncar, Katarina. 2005. “Living on the edge: Wh-movement in Serbo-Croatian.” MA Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  56. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kroch, Anthony. 2001. “Syntactic Change.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 699–729. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Lebeaux, David. 1988. “Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amhers, MA.Google Scholar
  59. Lebeaux, David. 1991. “Relative Clauses, Licensing and the Nature of the Derivation.” In Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspective on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, edited by Susan Rothstein, 209–39. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where Does Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lee, Felicia Ann. 2000. “Antisymmetry and the Syntax of San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  62. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. “Word Order and (Remnant) VP Movement.” In Word Order and Scrambling, edited by Simin Karimi, 217–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Massam, Diane. 2000. “VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean Word Order.” In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, and Eithne Guilfoyle, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. “Head Movement in Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1):69–109. doi:10.1162/002438906775321184%U
  65. Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94.Google Scholar
  66. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moro, Andrea. 2009. “Rethinking Symmetry: A Note on Labelling and the EPP.” Snippets 19:17–8.Google Scholar
  69. Müller, Gereon. 1996. “A Constraint on Remnant Movement.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14 (2):355–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Müller, Gereon. 1997. “Extraposition as Remnant Movement.” In Rightward Movement, edited by Dorothee Deerman, David LeBlanc, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 215–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. Müller, Gereon. 2004. “Verb-Second as vP-First.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7 (3):179–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nakajima, Takashi. 1999. “Word Order in the Minimalist Program: A Derivational Approach.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  73. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Oda, Kenji. 2003. “Irish as a VP Fronting Language.” In Proceedings of Canadian Linguistic Association 2002. Université de Montréal à Québec.Google Scholar
  75. Oda, Kenji. 2005. “V1 and Wh-questions: A typology.” In Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Sheila Ann Dooley, 107–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  76. Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41.Google Scholar
  77. Phillips, Colin. 2003. “Linear Order and Constituency.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (1):37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Richards, Marc D. 2007. “On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition.” Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3):563–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Richards, Marc D. 2008. “Desymmetrization: Parametric Variation at the PF Interface.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53 (2/3):275–300.Google Scholar
  80. Richards, Norvin. 1998. “The Principle of Minimal Compliance.” Linguistic Inquiry 29 (4):599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Roberts, Ian. 2001. “Head Movement.” In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory edited by Mark Baltin, and Chris Collins, 113–47 Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Rubin, Edward J. 2003. “Determining Pair-Merge.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (4):660–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19.Google Scholar
  84. Safir, Ken. 1999. “Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A Chains.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):587–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. “Cyclic Domains in Syntactic Theory.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  87. Stowell, Tim. 1981. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  88. Takano, Yuji. 2000. “Illicit Remnant Movement: An Argument for Feature-Driven Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 31 (1):141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Toyoshima, Takashi. 2000. “Head-To-Spec Movement and Dynamic Economy.” PhD diss., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  90. Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1989. “Parameters of Phrase Structure.” In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, edited by Mark Baltin, and Anthony Kroch, 263–79. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  93. Wojdak, Rachel. 2008. The Linearization of Affixes: Evidence from Nuu-Chah-Nulth. New York, NY/Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. “The Germanic SOV Languages and the Universal Base Hypothesis.” In The New Comparative Syntax, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 246–67. London, New York: Longman Linguistics Library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations